Hoskins v Ramsden

Case [2008] WASC 28

HOSKINS -v- RAMSDEN [2008] WASC 28


Link to Appeal :

SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2008] WASC 28
Case No:SJA:1074/20076 FEBRUARY 2008
Coram:TEMPLEMAN J6/03/08
18Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeals dismissed
B
PDF Version
Parties:HELEN LORRAINE HOSKINS
DENICE BETTY PEARSON
ANDREW JOHN RAMSDEN

Catchwords:
Criminal law
Appeals against conviction and sentence
Possession of thing reasonably suspected of being stolen
Whether complainants must be certain of identity of stolen material
Whether totality principle applied in sentencing

Legislation:
Criminal Code (WA), s 428

Case References:
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
R v Chan (1992) 28 NSWLR 421
R v Grace (1930) 30 SR (NSW) 158
R v Tween [1965] VR 687
Sgroi v The Queen (1989) 40 A Crim R 197

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CIVIL
CITATION : HOSKINS -v- RAMSDEN [2008] WASC 28 CORAM : TEMPLEMAN J HEARD : 6 FEBRUARY 2008 DELIVERED : 7 MARCH 2008 FILE NO/S : SJA 1074 of 2007
    SJA 1075 of 2007
BETWEEN : HELEN LORRAINE HOSKINS
    DENICE BETTY PEARSON
    Appellants

    AND

    ANDREW JOHN RAMSDEN
    Respondent


ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE V C EDWARDS

File No : MI 9419 - 9440 of 2005, MI 9395 - 9416 of 2005


Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeals against conviction and sentence - Possession of thing reasonably suspected of being stolen - Whether complainants must be certain of identity of stolen material - Whether totality principle applied in sentencing


(Page 2)



Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 428

Result:

Appeals dismissed

Category: B


Representation:

Counsel:


    Appellants : Mr H Sklarz
    Respondent : Ms J C Pritchard

Solicitors:

    Appellants : Henry Sklarz
    Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia



Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
R v Chan (1992) 28 NSWLR 421
R v Grace (1930) 30 SR (NSW) 158
R v Tween [1965] VR 687
Sgroi v The Queen (1989) 40 A Crim R 197


(Page 3)

1 TEMPLEMAN J: The appellants, Helen Lorraine Hoskins and Denice Betty Pearson, appeal against their convictions by a magistrate on thirteen charges brought against each of them under s 428 of the Criminal Code (WA).

2 The appellants were acquitted of a further nine charges.

3 Should these appeals be unsuccessful, the appellants appeal against the sentences imposed on them in respect of those convictions. Each appellant was ordered to pay a fine of $15,000.




The appeals against conviction

4 Section 428 of the Criminal Code provides:


    (1) A person who is in possession of any thing capable of being stolen that is reasonably suspected to be stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained is guilty of an offence and is liable to imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of $24 000.

    (2) It is a defence to a charge of an offence under subsection (1)…

Continue reading Hoskins v Ramsden

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hoskins v Ramsden [2008] WASC 28
Case
[2008] WASC 28
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Hoskins v Ramsden was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the appellant sought to challenge both his conviction and the sentence imposed by a lower court. The appellant was convicted of possessing items that were reasonably suspected to be stolen. The appeal hinged on two main issues: firstly, whether the complainants needed to be certain about the identity of the stolen items, and secondly, whether the totality principle was correctly applied in the sentencing process.

The court addressed the first issue by examining the legal standards required for establishing possession of stolen goods. It was established that certainty regarding the specific items was not necessary, as long as there was a reasonable suspicion that the items were stolen. The court held that the lower court had correctly applied the law in this regard, affirming the conviction. Regarding the second issue, the court considered whether the totality principle was appropriately applied during sentencing. The totality principle allows for the aggregation of multiple offences to be considered as a whole when determining an appropriate sentence. The court found that the lower court had adequately considered the totality of the appellant’s offending and imposed a sentence that was both fair and proportionate.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeals against both his conviction and sentence. The reasoning provided by the lower court was upheld, and the appellant's conviction and sentence were affirmed. The orders of the lower court were thus maintained, and no further appeal was allowed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeals dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.